pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07906 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · ❄️ cond-mat.other · cond-mat.quant-gas· quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Checkerboard Bose Hubbard Ladders using Transmon Arrays

Pranjal Praneel , Thomas G Kiely , Andre G Petukhov , Erich J Mueller
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 03:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.other cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords Bose-Hubbard modelcheckerboard latticesublattice biastransmon arrayscommensurate superfluidMott insulatorquantum simulationfinite size effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

A sublattice bias in the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard model makes the commensurate superfluid phase experimentally accessible with transmon arrays.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Adding a sublattice bias enriches the physics of the two-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model on a checkerboard lattice by providing control knobs for the quantum state. This model can be implemented using arrays of transmon qubits. The bias moves the commensurate superfluid phase to an accessible parameter range and offers new ways to probe the phases. The paper characterizes the superfluid and insulating phases while accounting for finite-size effects in the system.

Core claim

The sublattice bias in the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard model, when realized in transmon arrays, brings the commensurate superfluid phase into an experimentally accessible regime and provides new probes for the superfluid and insulating phases, with attention to finite size effects.

What carries the argument

Checkerboard Bose-Hubbard model with sublattice bias, an energy difference between the two sublattices that tunes the location of phase transitions.

If this is right

  • The commensurate superfluid phase enters an experimentally reachable regime.
  • Additional controls become available to interrogate the quantum states.
  • Finite size effects in the phases can be carefully analyzed.
  • Transmon arrays serve as a platform to explore this model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This method of adding bias could be extended to other lattice geometries in superconducting qubit simulators.
  • Observing the phases would demonstrate control over two-dimensional quantum many-body systems in transmon hardware.
  • Accounting for finite sizes suggests experiments should aim for larger arrays to approach the thermodynamic limit.

Load-bearing premise

It is possible to engineer transmon arrays that realize the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard model including the sublattice bias with low enough decoherence and minimal extra couplings.

What would settle it

Failure to detect the commensurate superfluid phase in a transmon array setup that otherwise matches the model parameters would indicate the claim is incorrect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07906 by Andre G Petukhov, Erich J Mueller, Pranjal Praneel, Thomas G Kiely.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Length 4 segments of a checkerboard ladders of width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Graphical representations of the infinite matrix prod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Phase diagrams of the Bose-Hubbard model on an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ground state gap ∆ of Eq. (3) at zero magnetization, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Expectation value of the polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left: (a) Fluctuations in the polarization and (b) its derivative as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Finite size scaling for the critical coupling in a 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Finite size scaling for the critical coupling in a 3- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Dynamics of state preparation for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Dynamics of state preparation for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Diagramatic representation of the local Hamilto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Adding a sublattice bias to the two dimensional Bose Hubbard model greatly enriches the available physics, and introduces knobs which can be used to control and interrogate the quantum state. We describe the physics of this checkerboard Bose Hubbard model and how it can be explored using transmon arrays. We show that the sublattice bias brings the commensurate superfluid phase into an experimentally accessible regime, and gives new probes. We characterize the superfluid and insulating phases, with careful attention to finite size effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes implementing the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard model in transmon arrays, with a focus on how a controllable sublattice bias enriches the phase diagram, renders the commensurate superfluid phase experimentally accessible, and provides new experimental probes. It characterizes the superfluid and Mott-insulating phases while paying explicit attention to finite-size effects in the ladder geometry.

Significance. If the transmon-array implementation can be realized with sufficient coherence and control, the work would offer a tunable superconducting-circuit platform for exploring sublattice-biased Bose-Hubbard physics, potentially making certain commensurate superfluid regimes more accessible than in ultracold-atom realizations and supplying new spectroscopic probes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Title and Abstract] Title versus abstract: The title specifies 'Ladders' (quasi-1D geometry with Kosterlitz-Thouless superfluidity and algebraic order), yet the abstract and central claims repeatedly refer to the 'two dimensional Bose Hubbard model' and 'true' long-range order. Because the finite-size scaling, accessibility argument, and probe utility differ qualitatively between 2D and ladder geometries, this mismatch is load-bearing for the main claim that the sublattice bias brings the commensurate superfluid into an experimentally accessible regime.
  2. [Implementation section (around the description of the transmon array)] Implementation assumptions: The claim that transmon arrays can realize the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard ladder with a controllable sublattice bias while keeping decoherence and unwanted couplings low enough to observe the predicted phases is stated without quantitative estimates of residual interactions, disorder, or decoherence rates relative to the required energy scales (e.g., tunneling t and on-site U).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model definition] Notation for the sublattice bias term is introduced without an explicit Hamiltonian equation; adding the term as Eq. (X) would improve clarity.
  2. [Numerical results] Finite-size scaling plots lack error bars or statements of statistical uncertainty from the numerical method employed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's thorough review and constructive criticism of our manuscript on Checkerboard Bose Hubbard Ladders using Transmon Arrays. The comments highlight important issues regarding consistency in geometry description and experimental implementation details. We address each point below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Title and Abstract] Title versus abstract: The title specifies 'Ladders' (quasi-1D geometry with Kosterlitz-Thouless superfluidity and algebraic order), yet the abstract and central claims repeatedly refer to the 'two dimensional Bose Hubbard model' and 'true' long-range order. Because the finite-size scaling, accessibility argument, and probe utility differ qualitatively between 2D and ladder geometries, this mismatch is load-bearing for the main claim that the sublattice bias brings the commensurate superfluid into an experimentally accessible regime.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the title and abstract are inconsistent in their description of the system's dimensionality. The title accurately reflects our focus on ladder geometries, which exhibit quasi-long-range (algebraic) order in the superfluid phase due to the Kosterlitz-Thouless mechanism in one dimension. The abstract, however, incorrectly refers to the two-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model and true long-range order. We will revise the abstract, introduction, and relevant sections to consistently describe the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard ladder and clarify that the superfluid phase features algebraic order rather than true long-range order. The sublattice bias still enriches the phase diagram and makes the commensurate superfluid accessible by tuning the effective chemical potential difference between sublattices, shifting the Mott lobe boundaries. While we acknowledge that finite-size scaling and probe details differ from true 2D, the core accessibility argument remains valid for the ladder system, as the energy scales (t, U, bias) are comparable and the ladder allows for better control in transmon arrays. We will update the finite-size analysis to be specific to ladders. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Implementation section (around the description of the transmon array)] Implementation assumptions: The claim that transmon arrays can realize the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard ladder with a controllable sublattice bias while keeping decoherence and unwanted couplings low enough to observe the predicted phases is stated without quantitative estimates of residual interactions, disorder, or decoherence rates relative to the required energy scales (e.g., tunneling t and on-site U).

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the manuscript lacks quantitative estimates for decoherence, disorder, and residual couplings. Our focus was on the ideal theoretical model and the new physics enabled by the sublattice bias. To address this, we will add a new subsection in the implementation section providing order-of-magnitude estimates drawn from current transmon literature. Typical transmon tunneling rates t are on the order of 10-50 MHz, on-site interactions U around 200-300 MHz, while coherence times allow decoherence rates of ~10 kHz, which are much smaller than t and U, enabling observation of the phases over relevant timescales. We will also estimate residual interactions from capacitive couplings and discuss mitigation strategies such as tunable couplers. This addition will support the feasibility claim without changing the main theoretical results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: proposal paper with independent physics description

full rationale

The paper proposes an experimental realization of the checkerboard Bose-Hubbard model via transmon arrays and analyzes the effects of sublattice bias on phases, including accessibility of the commensurate superfluid and finite-size considerations. No load-bearing derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present in the abstract or described claims. The work is forward-looking and self-contained against external benchmarks for the model physics; any title-abstract dimensionality tension is a presentational issue, not a reduction of results to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted or audited from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5383 in / 1119 out tokens · 78963 ms · 2026-05-11T03:20:09.642452+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    V” shaped gap which vanishes at a single point. ForN= 2 the gap is always finite, and forms a “U

    Again in 1D this can be mapped onto noninteracting fermions. As already explained, at times we will use this mapping to gain extra insight into the physics of Eq. (1). Most of our calculations, however, work with the full model. III. INSULATING STATES At commensurate densities and small inter-site cou- pling,g≪η(t≪Uin standard Hubbard model lan- guage), t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Luttinger Liquid with Boundaries Here we calculate the polarizaton fluctuations of a fi- nite Luttinger liquid, which is the continuum limit of our model of the superfluid phase. The low energy excita- tions are described by a Hamiltonian [49] ˆH= u 2π Z L 0 dx[K(π ˆΠ)2 + 1 K (∂x ˆφ)2] (B1) Here ˆφ(x) is related to the particle density ˆρ(x) =P j ˆnjδ(x−x...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Here we calculate the polar- ization fluctuations in the case of hard-core bosons or non-interacting fermions, without making those assump- tions

    Free Fermion Calculation The Luttinger liquid description in Appendix B 1 in- volves a long-wavelength approximation and expands about a uniform density. Here we calculate the polar- ization fluctuations in the case of hard-core bosons or non-interacting fermions, without making those assump- tions. The result agrees with the expression from Ap- pendix B ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    G. Q. AI and collaborators, Nature 10.1038/s41586-025- 09526-6 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025- 2025

  5. [5]

    Yanay, J

    Y. Yanay, J. Braum¨ uller, S. Gustavsson, W. D. Oliver, and C. Tahan, npj Quantum Information6, 10.1038/s41534-020-0269-1 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-020-0269-1 2020

  6. [6]

    Mansikkam¨ aki, S

    O. Mansikkam¨ aki, S. Laine, A. Piltonen, and M. Silveri, PRX Quantum3, 040314 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    U. L. Heras, L. Garc´ ıa-´Alvarez, A. Mezzacapo, E. Solano, and L. Lamata, Quantum simulation of spin chains cou- pled to bosonic modes with superconducting circuits, inApplications + Practical Conceptualization + Math- ematics = fruitful Innovation(Springer Japan, 2015) p. 93–103

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Kairys and T

    P. Kairys and T. S. Humble, Phys. Rev. A104, 042602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Orell, A

    T. Orell, A. A. Michailidis, M. Serbyn, and M. Silveri, Phys. Rev. B100, 134504 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Shi, Z.-H

    Y.-H. Shi, Z.-H. Sun, Y.-Y. Wang, Z.-A. Wang, Y.-R. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, H.-T. Liu, K. Zhao, J.-C. Song, G.- H. Liang, Z.-Y. Mei, J.-C. Zhang, H. Li, C.-T. Chen, X. Song, J. Wang, G. Xue, H. Yu, K. Huang, Z. Xiang, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Probing spin hydrody- namics on a superconducting quantum simulator (2023), arXiv:2310.06565 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Saxberg, A

    B. Saxberg, A. Vrajitoarea, G. Roberts, M. G. Panetta, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature612, 435–441 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    A. H. Karamlou, I. T. Rosen, S. E. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, A. Di Paolo, L. Ding, P. M. Harrington, M. Hays, R. Das, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, M. Schuldt, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, Y. Yanay, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Nature 10.1038/s41586-024-07325-z (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07325-z 2024

  13. [13]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, J. Tangpanitanon, V. M. Bastidas, A. Megrant, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, M. Giustina, E. Jef- frey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Quin- tana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. White, H. Neven, D. G. Angelakis, and J. Martinis, Science358, 1175–1179 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    R. Ma, B. Saxberg, C. Owens, N. Leung, Y. Lu, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature566, 51–57 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Chiaro, C

    B. Chiaro, C. Neill, A. Bohrdt, M. Filippone, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, R. Collins, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, M. Harrigan, T. Huang, S. Isakov, E. Jeffrey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, A. Korotkov, F....

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    C. Zha, V. M. Bastidas, M. Gong, Y. Wu, H. Rong, R. Yang, Y. Ye, S. Li, Q. Zhu, S. Wang, Y. Zhao, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, C.-Z. Peng, J. Schmiedmayer, K. Nemoto, H. Deng, W. J. Munro, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 170503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    M. Gong, G. D. de Moraes Neto, C. Zha, Y. Wu, H. Rong, Y. Ye, S. Li, Q. Zhu, S. Wang, Y. Zhao, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, C.-Z. Peng, H. Deng, A. Bayat, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033043 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    G. P. Fedorov, S. V. Remizov, D. S. Shapiro, W. V. Pogosov, E. Egorova, I. Tsitsilin, M. Andronik, A. A. Dobronosova, I. A. Rodionov, O. V. Astafiev, and A. V. Ustinov, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 180503 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Yan, Y.-R

    Z. Yan, Y.-R. Zhang, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Zheng, S. Li, C. Wang, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, C. Guo, L. Sun, C.-Z. Peng, K. Xia, H. Deng, H. Rong, J. Q. You, F. Nori, H. Fan, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Science364, 753–756 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    B. Du, R. Suresh, S. L´ opez, J. Cadiente, and R. Ma, Probing site-resolved current in strongly interacting su- perconducting circuit lattices (2024), arXiv:2403.11967 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Hacohen-Gourgy, V

    S. Hacohen-Gourgy, V. V. Ramasesh, C. De Grandi, I. Siddiqi, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 240501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    X. Li, H. Xu, J. Wang, L.-Z. Tang, D.-W. Zhang, C. Yang, T. Su, C. Wang, Z. Mi, W. Sun, X. Liang, M. Chen, C. Li, Y. Zhang, K. Linghu, J. Han, W. Liu, Y. Feng, P. Liu, G. Xue, J. Zhang, S. P. Zhao, Y. Jin, S.-L. Zhu, H. Yu, and Q.-K. Xue, Mapping topology- disorder phase diagram with a quantum simulator (2024), arXiv:2301.12138 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    M. Gong, S. Wang, C. Zha, M.-C. Chen, H.-L. Huang, Y. Wu, Q. Zhu, Y. Zhao, S. Li, S. Guo, H. Qian, Y. Ye, F. Chen, C. Ying, J. Yu, D. Fan, D. Wu, H. Su, H. Deng, H. Rong, K. Zhang, S. Cao, J. Lin, Y. Xu, L. Sun, C. Guo, N. Li, F. Liang, V. M. Bastidas, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Science372, 948–952 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Kounalakis, C

    M. Kounalakis, C. Dickel, A. Bruno, N. K. Lang- ford, and G. A. Steele, npj Quantum Information4, 10.1038/s41534-018-0088-9 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-018-0088-9 2018

  25. [25]

    Roberts, A

    G. Roberts, A. Vrajitoarea, B. Saxberg, M. G. Panetta, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Manybody interferometry of quantum fluids (2023), arXiv:2309.05727 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Ticea, E

    N. Ticea, E. Portoles, E. Rosenberg, A. Schuckert, A. Szasz, B. Kobrin, N. Pomata, P. Praneel, C. Miao, S. Kumar, E. Crane, I. Drozdov, Y. Lensky, S. Gonzalez- Garcia, T. Kiely, D. Abanin, A. Abbas, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, G. Aigeldinger, R. Alcaraz, S. Alcaraz, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, W. Askew, N. Astrakhant- sev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. Ball...

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Hayward, C

    A. Hayward, C. Schweizer, M. Lohse, M. Aidelsburger, and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Phys. Rev. B98, 245148 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Citro and M

    R. Citro and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 87–101 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B27, 6083 (1983)

    work page 1983

  30. [30]

    Padhan, S

    A. Padhan, S. Mondal, S. Vishveshwara, and T. Mishra, Phys. Rev. B109, 085120 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Athanasiou, I

    S. Athanasiou, I. E. Nielsen, M. M. Wauters, and M. Bur- rello, SciPost Phys.16, 083 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Ortiz and R

    G. Ortiz and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B49, 14202 (1994)

    work page 1994

  33. [33]

    Resta and D

    R. Resta and D. Vanderbilt, inTopics in Applied Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007) pp. 31–68

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    Resta, Phys

    R. Resta, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1800 (1998)

    work page 1998

  35. [35]

    Carcy, G

    C. Carcy, G. Herc´ e, A. Tenart, T. Roscilde, and D. Cl´ ement, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 045301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Gardas, J

    B. Gardas, J. Dziarmaga, and W. H. Zurek, Physical Re- view B95, 10.1103/physrevb.95.104306 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.95.104306 2017

  37. [37]

    Gericke, F

    T. Gericke, F. Gerbier, A. Widera, S. F¨ olling, O. Man- del, and I. Bloch, Journal of Modern Optics54, 735–743 (2007)

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    Bakkali-Hassani, J

    B. Bakkali-Hassani, J. Kwan, P. Segura, Y. Li, I. Tes- faye, G. Valent´ ı-Rojas, A. Eckardt, and M. Greiner, Revealing pseudo-fermionization and chiral binding of one-dimensional anyons using adiabatic state preparation (2026), arXiv:2602.20421 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature595, 227–232 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Praneel, T

    P. Praneel, T. G. Kiely, E. J. Mueller, and A. G. Petukhov, Phys. Rev. A110, 062615 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Na- ture Reviews Physics4, 660–671 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    D. Malz, G. Styliaris, Z.-Y. Wei, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 040404 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    F. m. c. Cr´ epin, N. Laflorencie, G. Roux, and P. Simon, Phys. Rev. B84, 054517 (2011)

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Applied10, 054062 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Stehlik, D

    J. Stehlik, D. M. Zajac, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, M. Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080505 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Carrasquilla, S

    J. Carrasquilla, S. R. Manmana, and M. Rigol, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.043606 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.87.043606 2013

  47. [47]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, and F. Pollmann, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2014, P10007 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Chepiga and F

    N. Chepiga and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B96, 054425 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Chepiga, I

    N. Chepiga, I. Affleck, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B101, 174407 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    A. A. Eberharter, L. Vanderstraeten, F. Verstraete, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 226502 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2003)

    work page 2003

  53. [53]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    work page 1928

  54. [54]

    Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015)

    P. Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015)

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    T. Ying, G. G. Batrouni, G. X. Tang, X. D. Sun, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B89, 195128 (2014)

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics6, 1181 (1973)

    work page 1973

  57. [57]

    D. R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 1201 (1977)

    work page 1977

  58. [58]

    V. . L. Berezinskii, JETP34, 610 (1972)

    work page 1972

  59. [59]

    Szasz, J

    A. Szasz, J. Motruk, M. P. Zaletel, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. X10, 021042 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    T. G. Kiely and E. J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. B105, 134502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    Pollmann, S

    F. Pollmann, S. Mukerjee, A. M. Turner, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 255701 (2009)

    work page 2009

  62. [62]

    Harada and N

    K. Harada and N. Kawashima, Physical Review B55, 16 R11949–R11952 (1997)

    work page 1997

  63. [63]

    Z. Zuo, S. Yin, X. Cao, and F. Zhong, Physical Review B104, 10.1103/physrevb.104.214108 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.104.214108 2021

  64. [64]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B40, 546 (1989)

    work page 1989

  65. [65]

    C.-F. Chen, M. Kastoryano, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and A. Gily´ en, Nature646, 561–566 (2025)

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Quantum thermal state preparation for near-term quantum processors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21318,

    J. Lloyd and D. A. Abanin, Quantum thermal state preparation for near-term quantum processors (2026), arXiv:2506.21318 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    H. F. Song, S. Rachel, and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B82, 012405 (2010)

    work page 2010

  68. [68]

    Chandran, A

    A. Chandran, A. Erez, S. S. Gubser, and S. L. Sondhi, Physical Review B86, 10.1103/physrevb.86.064304 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.064304 2012

  69. [70]

    A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollw¨ ock, and G. Vidal, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment2004, P04005 (2004)

    work page 2004

  70. [71]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Physical Review Letters107, 10.1103/physrevlett.107.070601 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.070601 2011

  71. [72]

    Formation and structure of ultralight bosonic dark mat- ter halos,

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Physical Review B94, 10.1103/phys- revb.94.165116 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2016

  72. [73]

    G. Q. AI and collaborators, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [74]

    T. S. Kuhn,The structure of scientific revolutions: Vol.2, no.2, 2nd ed., Foundations of Unity of Science (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1970)

    work page 1970

  74. [76]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    work page 2022

  75. [77]

    M. M. Rams, P. Czarnik, and L. Cincio, Phys. Rev. X8, 041033 (2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [78]

    Vanhecke, J

    B. Vanhecke, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, L. Vander- straeten, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250604 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [79]

    S. R. White, Site basis excitation ansatz for matrix prod- uct states (2026), arXiv:2509.06241 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026